Strategy Workshop
Monthly Mobilization
Home | Proposal | Plan | Forum | Articles

Obama's Movement

Proposals for Post-election Activities

Purpose:

To help transform America comprehensively and fundamentally by creating a truly just, loving, and democratic society that protects the environment and treats other nations fairly as members of a global community that no one country should try to dominate.

Methods:

The Monthly Mobilization will support progressive activist organizations by:

• supporting political demands developed by those organizations;
• relying on their leadership and literature;
• encouraging Monthly Mobilization members and other people to join those organizations;
• leaving the negotiation of compromises to those organizations.

The Monthly Mobilization will invite organizations that actively support the Monthly Mobilization to nominate a representative to the Monthly Mobilization's board of directors.

Once a month, in support of a specific proposal for action, Monthly Mobilization members will communicate with their Congressperson by one or more of the following:

• making a phone call;
• sending an email;
• mailing a letter;
• visiting their Congressperson's local office;
• participating in a Congressional Community Dialogue;
• participating in a public demonstration or leafleting.

When appropriate, Monthly Mobilization members will also be encouraged, if they have time, to communicate with their Senators and the President on the same issue after they have contacted their Congressperson.

NOTES:

By providing timely support to demands developed by other organizations, the Monthly Mobilization will help those organizations achieve more than they could otherwise.

By mobilizing one million or more people to take effective unified action, the Monthly Mobilization will inspire people who are now discouraged.

By focusing on one brief monthly action, the Monthly Mobilization will provide people with little free time the opportunity to make an impact.

The Monthly Mobilization will:

• be able to take quick, timely action in support of any one of a whole range of progressive issues;
• be able to stay together over time because its members will share a common commitment to long-term goals and will not be satisfied with any one victory or discouraged by any one defeat.

Comments: To give feedback or make a suggestion concerning this page, click here.

COMMENTS:

I don't think that you have proposed anything that is impossible for technical reasons. I would note that I think it is generally inefficient to accept donations of $1 or so because typical credit card processing costs are roughly 25 to 50 cents per transaction plus 2 to 3 percent of the transaction amount, although my experience with this is limited.

Frankly, I have mixed feelings about the proposal. It is an inspiring vision and I would be excited to see progressives act in such a concerted and strategic way to shape our nation's future. At the same time, I have difficulty seeing what would make it feasible. Here are a few things that come to mind as potential obstacles that you might work to address, if you think it appropriate:

• Achieving critical mass - As one example, MoveOn achieved critical mass through two catalyzing events, the Republican effort to impeach Bill Clinton and the September 11th attacks. While it is probably common for an organization to get its start through such events, it is unusual for that organization to expand successfully beyond a focus on one issue related to the event that inspired its formation. Is there an event or potential event that could serve these purposes for the Monthly Mobilization?
• Finding unity of purpose - I really appreciate the statement that you wrote called "What We Believe." A statement of principles is important, and the one you wrote is great. At the same time, no statement of principles alone can ensure that participants in an organization will find consensus or effective ways to coalesce around major decisions. One example is the Obama transition's Citizen's Briefing Book project, which solicited ideas from citizens on what the administration's priorities should be. There may have been some good ideas there, but it seemed to me that there was mostly agitation by countless single-issue groups, whether to legalize marijuana or to launch a new investigation of 9/11. Similarly, if you spend some time at Daily Kos, a community dedicated to electing "more and better Democrats" that has more than 200,000 registered members, you will find a great deal of disagreement about priorities and how to pursue them. Even on a single topic, such as national health care, you will find divisions between people who will only support a single-payer plan, people who think a government option is more feasible or preferable, people who think it is best to support whatever the Obama administration proposes, people who insist that nothing can be achieved until corporate lobbying is outlawed, etc. I fear that, even if many people joined the Mobilization, people might be divided by their priorities and beliefs in the best ways to pursue them, and there would be little interest in acting to support a proposal or approach that differs from one's original preferences. Are there ways to overcome this?
• Building trust - Related to finding unity of purpose is the need to create an environment in which people feel solidarity with each other and confidence in the organization to which they belong. For some organizations, a charismatic figure or respected institutional affiliation forms the initial basis of trust, which can then be cultivated. These are surely not the only ways to build trust, but it is necessary to consider what would make people feel comfortable joining this and participating in it. (I think the gatherings at people's homes that you describe are a good start.) While you are not talking about just another website, it is worth observing that many progressive web communities often have heated disputes about who is really a progressive, whether the site is truly advancing progressive goals or is administered fairly, and even whether the site is being manipulated by conservative/corporate infiltrators. Given such patterns, what might form the basis for trust?
• Timeliness - There are many issues before Congress in any given month. These may not be the topics of greatest importance to participants at any given time. In addition, the agenda of Congress sometimes changes suddenly, such as when a bill unexpectedly doesn't make it out of committee, a senator places a secret hold on a motion, or the president makes a proposal of his own. It might be difficult for the Monthly Mobilization to choose something that it can influence each month if it must adhere to its own schedule, which may not anticipate fully the changing focus of the Congress. Is there a way to make the Mobilization more agile?
• Consistency - If members choose each month a proposal to advance, is there something that will prevent them from acting in ways that are grossly inconsistent over time? For example, might they narrowly prefer a proposal to adopt economic sanctions as an alternative to war against a state that is said to be developing nuclear weapons, and then a couple months later choose a proposal that opposes economic sanctions as unfair punishment of civilians? Such a case might lead many to dismiss the legitimacy or effectiveness of the organization. On the other hand, if a committee of representatives evaluates the members' preferences, but acts in a way that is not necessarily bound by them, then it might be more consistent, but could lose the trust of its members. In addition, what if the Mobilization makes the passage of a bill in the House a priority one month, but is focused on other things while the corresponding bill languishes in the Senate? How could these be addressed?
• Media influence on participants - George Lakoff told me of a time when he was asked by MoveOn to read all of the ideas submitted by their members over a given period. He concluded that virtually all of the ideas they received were echoes of what people had heard repeatedly in the media. While I would hope that was an overstatement, it does seem fair to expect that, even among members of a progressive organization, the conventional media has a major influence on what people regard as the major issues, how they perceive them, and what approaches they see as ways to address them. If, on the news and talk shows, they see the people who play liberals on TV argue for a "public option" for health care and see conservatives argue against it, many will tend to see these as the two realistic alternatives and progressives will tend to support what the TV liberals advocate. It might turn out that Congress will pass a public option that the insurance companies will then use as a dumping ground for costly patients, and in a few years the media will declare that the public option has been an expensive failure and is proof that government cannot provide health services effectively. As long as corporate media continues to dominate our political discourse, this will be a challenge. Are there ways to reduce this influence on the members themselves?

I don't know whether this has been helpful or just discouraging. I hope it is the former, but let me know if it is not.